A different Thomas PEACOCK

[DaveHam9]

Hello,

This one is not the Thomas in my tree.

Thomas PEACOCK b. 1831 Bitton - parents James PEACOCK & Hannah ISLES


groom's name: Thomas Peacock
groom's birth date: 1833
groom's birthplace:
groom's age: 21
bride's name: Mary Ann Peacock
bride's birth date: 1833
bride's birthplace:
bride's age: 21
marriage date: 26 Apr 1854
marriage place: Kingswood (Near Bristol), Gloucester, England
groom's father's name: James Peacock
groom's mother's name:
bride's father's name: William Peacock
bride's mother's name:
groom's race:
groom's marital status:
groom's previous wife's name:
bride's race:
bride's marital status:

The Thomas PEACOCK in my tree was born abt 1833 in Bitton to parents Daniel & Ann WILMOT.

I thought my Thomas had married his cousin Mary Ann but the more complete marriage record above shows that the father of Thomas is James. I will agree it's a pity the marriage record does not say Thomas was born in 1831 and hence provide a bit more support that it's not my Thomas. I will explain later why I've also considered the possibility that it is my Thomas and that the 'James' is an error.

Since there is another Thomas PEACOCK born in the same place I'd like a look up please for Thomas in 1841 & 1851. I hope in 1841 he is with his parents James & Hannah and that in 1851 there is something to distinguish him from my Thomas born about 2 years later. The census might have born Bitton or born Oldland.

I hope this makes sense.

Regards,

Dave

 

[juliejtp]

Hi Dave,

CP Bitton
RD Keynsham
Sub RD Bitton
Hundred Langley and Swinehead (upper division)

Address Batch

James Peacock age 35 occ miner
Hannah Peacock age 35
Henry Peacock age 15
James Peacock age 10
Mary Ann age 10
Thomas age 5
Sarah Peacock age 4
Hannah age 7mths

All born in county

 

[juliejtp]

Hi Dave,

1851

CP Bitton
RD Keynsham
Sub RD Bitton

High Elm

James Peacock age 47
Hannah age 46
Mary Ann age 20
Thomas age 18 born Oldland
Robert age 16
Sarah age 14
Hannah age 12
John age 8
Emely age 5

 

[juliejtp]

There is a marriage in Bristol 1 Feb1830 for a William Butler Peacock to a Sarah Broad.

 

[DaveHam9]

Hello Julie,

Thank you very much.

About a year ago I thought my Thomas had married his cousin Mary Ann, and on that basis I chased her father William and his spouse Sarah and all Mary Ann's siblings. Then some doubt was cast on that branch of my tree and the more complete marriage record didn't show the father as Daniel.

This is my Thomas with his family in 1841 and 1851:


1841
HO107/piece 361 bk 16 f 50 p 3
Civil parish Bitton
RD Keynsham
Sub RD Bitton
Daniel Peacock age 50 occ fish monger
Ann Peacock age 49
Isaac Peacock age 20 occ labourer
Mary Peacock age 14
Aaron Peacock age 12
Daniel Peacock age 10
Thomas Peacock age 8
William Peacock age 5
All born in county

1851
HO107/1944/335/12
Civil parish Bitton
RD Keynsham
sub RD Bitton
Danel Peacock head age 62 occ fishmonger born Bitton
Ann wife age 62 born Oldland
Daniel son age 19 occ coal miner born Oldland
Thomas son age 17 occ coal miner born Oldland
William son age 15 occ ag. lab born Oldland


Could you please see if you can find an address for my family. I'm curious to see if I can find how close the two families were living in Bitton.

I have followed the Thomas who married Mary Ann through the years and he ceased being a coal miner and became a fish hawker in 1881 and 1891 which is rather curious in that it is Daniel's occupation all his life. There are enough children with Thomas & Mary Ann through the years to be reasonably sure it is the same family.

Regards,

Dave

 

[DaveHam9]

Hello Julie,

It's one of these:

William Peacock (otp) & Sarah Britton (otp)
2 Sep 1826 at Bitton St Mary - Banns

William Butler PEACOCK Spouse: Sarah BROAD
Marriage: 1 Feb 1830 Temple, Bristol, Gloucester, England
Batch: says extracted

But probably does not matter now if that 26 Apr 1854 marriage is not one for my Thomas. I cannot find a marriage that fits the dates and location that has Daniel as his father, not can I find a death/burial record for my Thomas if he did die between 1851 and 1861. So the next question.

Can an unmarried Thomas b. 1833 Bitton or Oldland a coal miner be found in 1861? Thanks.

Regards,

Dave

 

[juliejtp]

Hi Dave,

The 1841 census gives the enumeration district for Daniel Peacock as 9a, for James the district number is 12. I've no idea what the distance would be.

 

[DaveHam9]

Hello Julie,

Thanks.

Looks about 3a mines. :2fun:

Regards,

Dave

 

[juliejtp]

Hi Dave,

1861
CP Bitton and Oldland

Address Potters Wood

Thomas Peacock age 26 occ coal miner born Bitton
Mary Ann wife age 26 born Bitton
Joseph son age 7
Elizabeth dau age 3
Mary Ann daughter age 1
Sophia dau age 18?

Going forward to 1881 Thomas and Mary Peacock (the other Peacocks) are in Bristol. Its looks like Thomas Peacock coalminer has remarried to Rebecca as there are 2 stepsons with the surname Hamblin.

CP Bitton-Oldland

Thomas Peacock age 48 occ coal miner born Bitton
Rebecca wife age 50 born Bitton
Luther W Hamblin age 18 stepson
Herbert G Hamblin age 11 stepson

 

[juliejtp]

Hi Dave,

I see by your other post that Thomas and Rebecca are a different couple!

 

[DaveHam9]

Hello Julie,

Thanks for looking.

1861
CP Bitton and Oldland

Address Potters Wood

Thomas Peacock age 26 occ coal miner born Bitton
Mary Ann wife age 26 born Bitton
Joseph son age 7
Elizabeth dau age 3
Mary Ann daughter age 1
Sophia dau age 18?

That is the Thomas with father = James

I can explain Sophia. She is Mary Ann's sister.

Yes, Thomas & Mary Ann are both alive and in Bristol in 1881.
Mary Ann died in Sep Q 1887 and spouse Thomas is listed as a widower in 1891.

The matter is further complicated by a THIRD Thomas with Father = Samuel as per my 1901 census query.

However the marriage of Thomas (father = Samuel) to Rebecca was in 1875 in Bristol.

Regards,

Dave

 

[juliejtp]

Dave,

Is the Thomas in 1861 the right one?

 

[DaveHam9]

Hello Julie,

Details we currently have not found or can't because they don't exist.

A marriage for a Thomas that lists his father as Daniel.

A birth/baptism for a Thomas b. abt 1833 Bitton with father as Samuel.


Lots of the children of Thomas & Mary Ann (Clara is an easy one to follow) married in Bristol. I think I have enough now to rule out Thomas with father = James because we have him with his family in 1841 & 1851. Father =James in the 1854 marriage looks to be correct.


====

Alternatives:

1. There are only TWO: There is no Thomas born abt 1833 Bitton with father = Samuel and athough it's rather late in life my Thomas married Rebecca and the father =Samuel in the marriage is an error? And this is the death of my Thomas:

Deaths Dec 1909
PEACOCK Thomas 70 Keynsham 5c 374


2. There are THREE and a marriage and a death can't be found for my Thomas. And a birth/baptism can't be found for Thomas with father = Samuel.

Regards,

Dave

 

[DaveHam9]

Dave,

Is the Thomas in 1861 the right one?

According to the 1854 marriage record the Thomas who married Mary Ann PEACOCK was the one with father = James hence not mine. The fact that you found a Thomas in a family with father = James rules out my hope that the marriage record was in error and that in might have been my Thomas based on the idea that later in life he reverted to the occupation of his father - fish monger.


Ok, one last question might even clear that up. Does the 1851 census list an occupation for James? If he was also a fish monger like Daniel then it's not such a strange thing that James' son started off as a coal miner then became a fish monger.

Regards,

Dave

 

[juliejtp]

Hi Dave,

James occupation in 1851 is coal miner.

 

[DaveHam9]

Hello Julie,

Thanks.

Now I have to decide if I gamble and order a copy of the 1909 death.

Regards,

Dave